Appeal No. 2000-0196
Application 08/796,478
pages 8 and 9. However, we agree with appellant that Murphy
does not teach the claimed feature. (Brief at page 9).
Instead, Murphy discloses an ultrasonic fan. Moreover, we
agree with appellant that there is no motivation for adding
Murphy to the combination of Barmatz ‘823 and Rey. Therefore,
we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 3 over
Barmatz, Rey and Murphy.
With respect to claims 16 and 17, claim 16 requires a
specific structure which requires a straight horn and an
ultrasonic excitation device comprising of a conical horn
which is attached to the lower surface of the straight horn.
The examiner asserts (final rejection at page 9) that “Barmatz
[435] shows (fig. 4) an object levitating apparatus
comprising: a straight horn (84) having upper and lower
surfaces, and an excitation device.” The examiner admits that
ultrasonics excitation device in Barmatz ‘435 does not
comprise a conical horn. However, the examiner contends that
conical horn 31 of Dorr would have been an obvious substitute
for ultrasonic excitation device 86 for exciting the straight
horn of Barmatz in Figure 4. See final rejection at pages 9
and 10. Appellant argues, brief at page 10, that “[t]here is,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007